Jump to content

PSA: F-14 Performance/FM Development Status + Guided Discussion


IronMike

Recommended Posts

And what I mean by that is not that we should stop discussing the flight model in a critical way because this is an excellent thread.

However, considering the HB devs have lives outside of DCS it's imo more pertinent to focus on areas where significant QoL improvements can be booked, like transonic drag, before we go into pointless minutiae at the edge of controllability. Any FM tweaks will have knock on effects regardless so one issue at a time.

Just my 2c

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Noctrach said:

But then you have to also take into account NATOPS charts are extrapolated test data and therefore not entirely accurate to real life performance either... from the video you screengrabbed it seems to me all of this is very much within the 5% margin of simulation error. This is fast approaching what the dutch call "geneuzel in de marge" i.e. putting way too much stress on unimportant details.

Does it really matter whether it's -1200 or -1000 Ps if the end result is still going to be that you're wallowing at stall speed...

 

1 hour ago, Noctrach said:

And what I mean by that is not that we should stop discussing the flight model in a critical way because this is an excellent thread.

However, considering the HB devs have lives outside of DCS it's imo more pertinent to focus on areas where significant QoL improvements can be booked, like transonic drag, before we go into pointless minutiae at the edge of controllability. Any FM tweaks will have knock on effects regardless so one issue at a time.

Just my 2c

Between -1200 and -1000 there is a 20% difference and the graph posted shows a maximum of 40% difference between the test and standard NATOPS, i think this is a huge difference, or maybe i'm wrong.

 


Edited by maxsin72
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maxsin72 said:

Between -1200 and -1000 there is a 20% difference and the graph posted shows a maximum of 40% difference between the test and standard NATOPS, i think this is a huge difference, or maybe i'm wrong.

I'm saying that's a pretty big conclusion to draw from a hand-flown test compared to an unmarked line of an extrapolated aerodynamic limit in a manual.

I'm also highly unsure if it's worth chasing HB through the difficult process of FM tweaking to fix the 1 in 1,000 fights won because someone got a gunshot off getting a handful of unrealistic angles by stalling the jet at 5000 feet above the deck. Especially knowing every FM tweak carries a risk of impacting much more common envelopes of flight.

Even if the difference is numerically bigger than 5%, we're talking the absolute extremes of the flight envelope here. I don't think there's a single simulation jet out there that gets those right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Noctrach said:

I'm saying that's a pretty big conclusion to draw from a hand-flown test compared to an unmarked line of an extrapolated aerodynamic limit in a manual.

I'm also highly unsure if it's worth chasing HB through the difficult process of FM tweaking to fix the 1 in 1,000 fights won because someone got a gunshot off getting a handful of unrealistic angles by stalling the jet at 5000 feet above the deck. Especially knowing every FM tweak carries a risk of impacting much more common envelopes of flight.

Even if the difference is numerically bigger than 5%, we're talking the absolute extremes of the flight envelope here. I don't think there's a single simulation jet out there that gets those right.

This is not the point, the point is to understand if, as some people think, F14B FM lack in acceleration or not. When HB released the FM update in november 2020 it was totally clear the plane was heavy tanked and, at least at the beginning, to everyone who reported the new FM was tanked, HB ansewered it was ok and very close to NATOPS standard. But that was not the truth. I think, and i'm not the only one,  that now the FM is really close to NATOPS standard apart acceleration. So, in my opinion, could be a good idea if HB will investigate.


Edited by maxsin72
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Noctrach said:

But then you have to also take into account NATOPS charts are extrapolated test data and therefore not entirely accurate to real life performance either... from the video you screengrabbed it seems to me all of this is very much within the 5% margin of simulation error. This is fast approaching what the dutch call "geneuzel in de marge" i.e. putting way too much stress on unimportant details.

Does it really matter whether it's -1200 or -1000 Ps if the end result is still going to be that you're wallowing at stall speed...

Very much this!  When I grip and rip it boggles my mind how quickly I can go from over 400kt to under 200kt.

1 hour ago, Noctrach said:

However, considering the HB devs have lives outside of DCS it's imo more pertinent to focus on areas where significant QoL improvements can be booked, like transonic drag,

I'm 90% sure the transonic drag issue is on ED for stores drag.  AFAIK HB does not control the drag of stores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Spurts said:

AFAIK HB does not control the drag of stores.

Partially true but as I recall HB takes these values and change them in their FM.

I've lost track of what updates were already done on HB part and if ED changed anything in the meantime.


Edited by draconus

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/1/2022 at 12:17 PM, maxsin72 said:

This is not the point, the point is to understand if, as some people think, F14B FM lack in acceleration or not. When HB released the FM update in november 2020 it was totally clear the plane was heavy tanked and, at least at the beginning, to everyone who reported the new FM was tanked, HB ansewered it was ok and very close to NATOPS standard. But that was not the truth. I think, and i'm not the only one,  that now the FM is really close to NATOPS standard apart acceleration. So, in my opinion, could be a good idea if HB will investigate.

 

Any update about acceleration question? Thanks

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Dear Heat Blur Staff, i really appreciate your hard work and passion for F14. Anyway i'm disappointed because of your silence about the acceleration question. Several people have reported the problem with data and even graphs. Maybe we are wrong, but i think it would be very kind and useful to aswer and tell us if you think the problem exist or not. Thanks a lot

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, maxsin72 said:

Dear Heat Blur Staff, i really appreciate your hard work and passion for F14. Anyway i'm disappointed because of your silence about the acceleration question. Several people have reported the problem with data and even graphs. Maybe we are wrong, but i think it would be very kind and useful to aswer and tell us if you think the problem exist or not. Thanks a lot

 

Creason provided an answer back here:

 

On 3/23/2022 at 10:35 AM, fat creason said:

Sorry I can't give a timeline, it will be done when it's done and depends greatly on the demands on my free time to work on it. The overall changes won't be significant either, it's already very close. Not really something to get hung up about waiting on.

 

 

It'll be done when it's done, maxsin, and you can be sure he'll let you, and everybody else know when it's so. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2022 at 3:35 PM, fat creason said:

Sorry I can't give a timeline, it will be done when it's done and depends greatly on the demands on my free time to work on it. The overall changes won't be significant either, it's already very close. Not really something to get hung up about waiting on.

 

 

4 hours ago, lunaticfringe said:

 

Creason provided an answer back here:

 

 

 

It'll be done when it's done, maxsin, and you can be sure he'll let you, and everybody else know when it's so. 

As you can see in Fat Creason answer, he wrote "The overall changes won't be significant either, it's already very close".

So i doubt HB is considering the acceleration question,  obviously i hope i'm wrong 🙂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, maxsin72 said:

 

As you can see in Fat Creason answer, he wrote "The overall changes won't be significant either, it's already very close".

So i doubt HB is considering the acceleration question,  obviously i hope i'm wrong 🙂


It is very close, whether you like to acknowledge it or not.  And at the same time, as illustrated- there are factors that they do not have control over which will preclude their ability to perform an exacting match to the 1.1 charts.  In a properly modeled atmosphere, with the attributed drag values from the 1.1 stores tables and the unclassified weapons tacman, their model matches.  Import it into DCS, where there are known minor issues with pressure, and ED controlling weapons drag arbitrarily rather than an aircraft to aircraft basis- and also changing those without consistently informing third parties of these alterations, plus the aforementioned issues with wave drag and weapons drag being doubled in some areas, it's a permanent state of cat and mouse. 

Now you, as a casual observer gazing over the E-Ms might think that 200 fps variance is a huge factor as to how hard you can flat plate the airframe; tactically speaking, it's a slightly deeper slice in the regime you should even be thinking about trying it.  Straight line high Mach runs- there's not much they're going to be able to do to control the large variances because they don't have direct control to solve them.  And no- permanent need to correct, observe, and recorrect isn't "controlling" the situation.  

So it is what it is.  You don't have to like it, it's simply what they're contending with.  And again- when they're done, you'll know. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, lunaticfringe said:


It is very close, whether you like to acknowledge it or not.  And at the same time, as illustrated- there are factors that they do not have control over which will preclude their ability to perform an exacting match to the 1.1 charts.  In a properly modeled atmosphere, with the attributed drag values from the 1.1 stores tables and the unclassified weapons tacman, their model matches.  Import it into DCS, where there are known minor issues with pressure, and ED controlling weapons drag arbitrarily rather than an aircraft to aircraft basis- and also changing those without consistently informing third parties of these alterations, plus the aforementioned issues with wave drag and weapons drag being doubled in some areas, it's a permanent state of cat and mouse. 

Now you, as a casual observer gazing over the E-Ms might think that 200 fps variance is a huge factor as to how hard you can flat plate the airframe; tactically speaking, it's a slightly deeper slice in the regime you should even be thinking about trying it.  Straight line high Mach runs- there's not much they're going to be able to do to control the large variances because they don't have direct control to solve them.  And no- permanent need to correct, observe, and recorrect isn't "controlling" the situation.  

So it is what it is.  You don't have to like it, it's simply what they're contending with.  And again- when they're done, you'll know. 

Listening to HB, it was really close also before the last big FM update and i've already read the same kind of answer also befeore the last big FM update, so what is your point?

I understand it's a very very hard work and also that there are problems not generated by HB, but the lack of acceleration in my opionion (to tell the truth not only mine) exists, so i would be very glad to know what HB think it's possible to do, you can like it or not, but this is what people are legit to ask. I thank you for your answer, but i think it's necessary that HB will answer.

🙂


Edited by maxsin72
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

I have not seen a single video of real Phoenix launched where the missile lofts this steeply and the way it does now in DCS...

Also it's the right thread to discuss the changes and current state of AIM-54.


Edited by draconus

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2022 at 2:43 AM, lunaticfringe said:

 

Now you, as a casual observer gazing over the E-Ms might think that 200 fps variance is a huge factor as to how hard you can flat plate the airframe; tactically speaking, it's a slightly deeper slice in the regime you should even be thinking about trying it.  Straight line high Mach runs- there's not much they're going to be able to do to control the large variances because they don't have direct control to solve them.  And no- permanent need to correct, observe, and recorrect isn't "controlling" the situation.  

 

For what is worth, the situation may be out of their hands yes, but state of the affairs is not to marginalized. Indeed, i would guess most of the F-14 demographics in DCS is engaged with the B model, from which you can still squeeze some transonic performance such as it is. However, things are largely different in the A model at altitude. And i'm not talking speed of heat dashes or ACM. You load your plane in a  Fleet Defense configuration and at any altitude that might emulate operational environment, you are going nowhere slow. The plane just hits a wall and won't go past mach 1. During co-op i find myself jettisoning the external tanks (an act that shortens my lifespan by roughly a year every time time i do it) just so can hit mach 1.1 and help the Buffalos not fight the transonic transition on their own burn. 

I don't know about everyone else, but this just feels wrong. In the region i should be getting roughly 30 knots every second, it takes 30seconds and tons of fuel for the needle to even squeak. And yes, we are told to be patient, but we have been patient. I have lost track of the last time i flew the A that could break the sound barrier at altitude and not feel like i just landed on the Moon for the first time. 😕 

  • Like 2

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

For what is worth, the situation may be out of their hands yes, but state of the affairs is not to marginalized. 

It's not being marginalized, and it's disingenuous to claim such.

We just witnessed the same situation with the TALD.  Months of back and forth, claims it was in the hands of one or the other, while a simple review of the files showed the world at large that the HB code was using the ED TALD from the start.  Over a year later, the TALD gets fixed in a patch on the ED side, and the decoy magically works again for the F-14 without a change by them.

Everybody knows what the problem is, but rather than holding the party where the fix resides to actually get it done, the argument is that somebody else needs to work around the error.  And then, at some indeterminate point in the future when things are made to work exactly as they should to begin with (ie, no more double drag or transonic crazy), they'll need to fix it again.

Or, folks could hit up the correct forum with the details and evidence of the 1.0+ Mach and weapons drag issues, and get it solved once.  Instead, they're here, because HB interacts more at the dev level.  Only, said familiarity in this instance is hitting the contempt phase. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said:

Or, folks could hit up the correct forum with the details and evidence of the 1.0+ Mach and weapons drag issues, and get it solved once.  Instead, they're here, because HB interacts more at the dev level.  Only, said familiarity in this instance is hitting the contempt phase. 

Of course it does. Despite most of us knowing what the problem is, it has been going on for so long, people get frustrated about it. And frustrated people do frustrated things.

But that wasn't what i was replying to. I pointed out to the difference in performance (acceleration) in the transonic region and how it's not insignificant. And the higher you go, the more apparent it becomes. Generally speaking at around 30000ft and above you start needing twice as much time to hit the numbers. What is even more interesting is that after mach 1.2 the plane actually over-performs by quite a margin. As if the high and fast part of the envelope hasn't really been fine tuned at all. 

  • Like 3

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
5 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Any new on this? Has been several months and there has been no mention of any work on the 14B FM.

I have the same question, thanks

Frankly, in my modest opinion, i think, for example, pilot's body it's really nice... after the FM is fixed, because FM is the pulsing heart of the plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

Problem is, the person doing the pilot body, doesn’t program flight models. 
 

Heatblur isn’t a one man band. Things are being worked on in parallel by different specialists.

 

How dare you invoke facts into such a conversation. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, maxsin72 said:

Frankly, in my modest opinion, i think, for example, pilot's body it's really nice... after the FM is fixed, because FM is the pulsing heart of the plane.

If only it was a drone. Aircraft cannot fly without the pilot.


Edited by draconus

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is, the person doing the pilot body, doesn’t program flight models. 
 
Heatblur isn’t a one man band. Things are being worked on in parallel by different specialists.
Yeah, but they are also working on the Eurofighter and Phantom. I don't want to speculate how they divide their time, but not all is spent on the Tomcat.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for an update when they have been silent on this topic for many months. If they tell us they haven't gotten around to it, fine, then we know.
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lt_Jaeger said:

That's where I come into play, I pretend to be a pilot and "fly" that thing. Works great, give it a try. 

Oh, I don't need DCS and its FM for that.

louis-de-funes-brrrrrrrr.gif

  • Like 1

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...